Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jdt6z01 wrote

Reply to comment by ipel4 in Private doctors in India are protesting against 'Right to health' bill. by pinkcheems

[removed]

−20

ipel4 t1_jdtc7zw wrote

> And your job under capitalism is to value your work properly by negotiating or by having someone negotiate for you.

And when everyone wants to skim you by paying you almost nothing then there is no negotiating. You work or you starve. Why do you think there's a minimal wage and other socialist laws which ensure worker rights? Also hiw would someone negotiate for me when right wing parties constantly try to dismantle unions and people still vote for them.

> With shitalism you can’t do that. Oh let me remind you, your precious unions don’t exist in shitalism.

So doesn't that mean that if a socialist country then voted to have unions it would simply be better than capitalism? :)

I'm not even for socialism, I think that a system that has free market but also worker rights (which apperantly you do not realise is anti-capitalist by nature) is simply better than both but somehow you claim the doctors would be magically better simply from it being a capitalist system. Bruh they ARE in a capitalist system. Which means there are two options, first being the doctors ask patients massive bills cause that's what they think their work is worth and the patient choosing between paying it or dying (like in the US), second there being restrictions where the patient can actually you know - afford his live saving treatments? Jeez I wonder which is better.

It's not like the doctors will be paid minimal wage (which by itself is meant to be livable off of) so you can't claim their work won't be appreciated.

12

blah_bleh-bleh t1_jdtkk85 wrote

India is a socialist country, we have unions. Heck we have a corporate society (employees own the company rather than management) running a cafe chain in India. Which is sort of the holy land of socialism here. Also didn’t America banned a lot of unions from being formed?

4

ipel4 t1_jdtn685 wrote

"Socialism shaped the principal economic and social policies of the Indian government but mostly followed Dirigisme after independence until the early 1990s, when India moved towards a more market-based economy." - Socialism in India Wiki page

> corporate society (employees own the company rather than management)

So then you're not socialist...? I guess a more accurate statement is a mixed economy since you have elements from both socialism and capitalism

> Also didn’t America banned a lot of unions from being formed?

Yep, they lie that the union would make their dalaries go down and people somehow fall for it even tho their primary purpose is literally to make them go up. They also double the work on those who threaten to start unions and then fire them for not being able to do their job.

3

blah_bleh-bleh t1_jdtny43 wrote

Well. It’s called Indian Socialism. Which states that every person should have equal opportunity to grow. I misspelled, not corporate but co-operative society. Like Amul, Mother Dairy. Which keeps companies like Nestle at bay and prevent them from commercialising essential sectors. Modern Policies like UPI, and ONDC exist to prevent monopolisation of internet in modern society. Like preventing Amazon and apple pay from fully overtaking their sector. So yes it’s a mix, but we still like to call ourselves socialist.

5

readerOP t1_jdtiy1o wrote

>having someone negotiate for you

that someone is called a union you silly fucker.

7